BY: Ömer Engin LÜTEM
Lately a group of four Turkish intellectuals publicized a declaration stating that their conscience do not acquiesce in the indifference towards the ‘‘Great Disaster’’ the Ottoman Armenians had been exposed to and the denial thereof, that they reject this injustice; and they offered apologies to Armenians on their own account.
According to the press news, this declaration will first be submitted to the signature of some intellectuals and/or well-known persons and then will presumably be opened to the signing of the general public over the internet with a year long campaign.
A point needs to be clarified before embarking on the essence of the subject. The term ‘‘Great Disaster’’ mentioned in the declaration is the Turkish translation of the ‘‘Metz Yegern’’ used in the Armenian language for ‘‘ genocide’’ as an attribute to the events of the 1915. Those who drafted the declaration have somehow avoided at this stage using the word ‘‘genocide ’’ and chose a synonym from the Armenian language. This may especially be due to the negative reactions the word genocide has created in Turkey. This sly approach was first exercised in 2001 by Pope Jean-Pierre II and he uttered the word Metz Yegern rather than genocide to alleviate the criticisms of Turkey.
When we come to the essence of the issue; for persons to offer apologies, they should have made a move that harmed or at least injured other individuals or communities in the first place. When one looks at the question from this angle, it will be seen that no living individual today is responsible for the relocation of Armenians for more than a century have elapsed ever since. One may think that they are apologizing on behalf of their grand fathers. Yet, in this case, their own grand fathers should have had responsibility related with the relocation, and this is in fact a very rare case. We personally do not presume that the forefathers of the four individuals who drafted the said declaration have any involvement in such an affair. However, it may be that among their grand fathers there were those killed by the Armenian gangs or, if they were migrants of Balkan origin, then they may have been killed with Bulgarian, Greek or Serbian bullets. On the other hand, even if the forefathers had responsibility as regards relocation, we should point out that the guilt and all types of responsibility are not hereditary, that no one can be judged based on his/her forefather’s guilt as responsible and is therefore not required to apologize, and that it will not have any judicial consequences even if he/she does so.
One of the eye-catching points in the declaration is the allegation that the disasters which the Armenians experienced have been dealt with indifference. In reality, it is a fact that in Turkey not only the public at large but also the intellectual circles are not well informed on the recent history of the country. This is true as regards disasters experienced by the Turks as much as by the Armenians. It is witnessed with pleasure that this situation caused by an inadequate education policy is changing in recent times especially with the contribution of research conducted in relation with issues pertaining to the Armenian case.
When it comes to the allegation that the declaration what the Armenians had experienced are being denied in Turkey, Turkey’s reaction in this context is very normal since the Armenians put forward the genocide charge not only against the Ottoman Empire but also against the Turkey of our day in the form of an accusation and because it is evident that at the base of these allegations lies some claims concerning compensation and territories to be ceded to Armenia. Hence a very great majority of the Turkish people definitely refuse the allegations of genocide and, on this basis, the Turkish policy follows the same line. The fact that not a single person endorses the Armenian allegations in the Turkish Parliament where many political tendencies and movements widely contrasting one another exist, is a feature that needs to be considered both by the Armenians and the foreign circles which support them.
Bringing to an end that the events of 1915 determine the Turkish-Armenian relations and prevent their development, it’s necessary to investigate those events with a scientific approach freed from feelings of rancor, hatred and vengeance and utopian calculations of political interest. In this context, accepting Turkey’s proposal to establish a Joint Commission of Historians should be considered as a necessary first step.
When we try to search why the need aroused to publicise the said declaration, we come across the authors’ explanations that it was purely a personal initiative. In other words, they claim to have acted with humanistic thoughts and, especially, with feelings of justice. If this is true, then why are they not interested in the immense tragedies lived in the recent history by the people whom they are also members of, why don’t they mention those millions chased from the lands lost by the Ottoman Empire starting from the 19th century, most of whom killed or have taken refuge in Thrace or Anatolia in extremely miserable conditions, and, why don’t they demand apologies from those who are responsible of this situation, starting from the Armenians. The atrocities and persecutions exacted on the Turks and other Moslem peoples during the Balkan Wars, pre- and post World War I periods, and Turkish Independence War have especially been well documented. On the other hand, murders of the Turkish diplomats committed by Armenians until twenty years ago solely for they represented their country abroad should also be considered within the same framework. Making no mention to these murders contributes to a deliberate policy implemented to efface them from the collective memory of the mankind.
In our opinion, the most negative aspect of this declaration is that it prefers the sorrows of the Armenians to those of the Turks and by so doing exibits a fundamentally biased and unjust attitude towards Turkey and the Turks.
Although it is alleged that this declaration was a personal initiative, the expressed intention to demand the signatures of the others and a year long campaign envisaged for that end, is a proof of the existence of a political movement rather than a personal initiative, aiming at getting as many Turks as possible to accept that an Armenian genocide had taken place. It is quite obvious that the project will start with the ‘‘apology’’ believed to impress a large number of persons due to its emotional aspect, in case people embrace the apology then will come the stage of recognizing or accepting genocide; once this is accomplished, payment of a compensation to Armenians will take its place in the agenda followed by the ultimate phase of ceding a certain size of land to Armenia in Eastern Anatolia.
The question of why this campaign was started now also deserves particular attention. We think the main reason is the Turkish public opinion’s welcoming attitude towards the “détente” process initiated by President Gül’s visit to Erivan and the desire to find urgent solutions to problems with Armenia and the Armenians which became more marked in the aftermath of the visit. This situation might have led those who prepared the declaration to think the Turkish public opinion was psychologically ready for starting a stage by stage process of endorsing the Armenian allegations. On this occasion, we need to remember that some USA an EU circles have suggested since the year 2000 that ‘‘the Turks should face up to their history’’, that they started certain initiatives and supported some persons and organizations within this framework. The aim is to distance the Turks from nationalist attitudes and behaviors by confronting their history, in other words, by accepting the accusations directed at them, and as a result, to acquiesce in ideas and proposals coming from those circles without much resistance. In short, the Turks’ being subjected to a kind of political reeducation is on the agenda. It would be appropriate to conceive the ‘‘apology campaign’’ as an element of this ‘‘reeducation”.
Diaspora and the Armenian press have mentioned this declaration in news texts but did not make any noteworthy comments in this connection. This may be due to the fact that the initiative is quite new and its results are not yet predictable along with the apology itself being quite a low level initiative insufficient to meet the Armenian demands. As a matter of fact, several days after the publishing of the declaration 300 intellectuals in Armenia sent an open letter to President Gül stating that as long as Turkey does not accept the ‘‘reality of Armenian genocide’’, a sincere dialog and a genuine reconciliation between the two nations will not be possible.
Neither any reaction came from the official hierarchy of Armenia. For Armenia has on many occasions announced that It did not demand Turkey’s acceptance of genocide allegations as a prerequisite to establish relations, it is understood that the apology is not a worthy enough factor deserving special attention. On the other hand, at serious negotiations conducted on a diplomatic level, such sentimentalities as ‘‘apology’’ are quite rare.
When we to evaluate the probable results of the declaration, we must say that every attempt proposing that the Turks accuse themselves hearten the militant Armenians and cause them to assume a more irreconcilable position. This will create trouble first of all for the present Armenian Government that conducts negotiations with Turkey and the fear of making compromise could lead these negotiations to a stalemate.
On the other hand, emergence of some intellectuals in Turkey who think just like the Armenians will give the impression to those in the Obama team who support accepting genocide that Turkey will not show a harsh reaction in case a decision passes through the American Congress. The same is valid for the draft resolutions pending at the parliaments of some other countries. Yet the experience shows that the pressures applied on Turkey yields results contrary to expectations and cause Turkey to harden its stance. In that case, the endeavors to construct a normal relationship between Turkey and Armenia may as well be postponed to an unknown date.
To sum up, though they may look innocent at first glance, the said declaration and the planned campaign have a potential to create many negative developments.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Sunday, December 14, 2008
90-YEAR-OLD LETTER FROM A FIRST-HAND WITNESS:
A letter, written by a Swedish commander, who witnessed the events in 1915 and published a newspaper on April 23 1917 has been revealed to read: I never saw Turks conducting a genocide. It is my responsibility to object to these claims. Emigration was a military compulsion for Turks."
Swedish commander: emigration is correct, however genocide did not happen
It has been revealed that a Swedish commander staying in Anatolia as observer refuted Armenian genocide claims in a letter he wrote in 1917. Commander says: "as an eye witness, I object to genocide claims."
It has been detected that a Swedish commander objected to genocide claims that Armenians commemorated each year 90 years ago. Commander Hjalmar Pravitz, who stayed in the Ottoman Empire as an observer, wrote an article for the Swedish Nya Dagligt Allehanda newspaper, dated April 23 1917, stating: "as an eye witness, I certainly object to genocide claims."
Commander Pravitz stated he read the books "Noble Man" by Karl Gustav Ossiannilsson and "The Terrible Situation of the Armenians" by Marika Stjernstedt and pointed out these are all full of lies. The Commander wrote: "all I want to do is relay the events and reveal the distortions in these books."
Swedish commander: emigration is correct, however genocide did not happen
It has been revealed that a Swedish commander staying in Anatolia as observer refuted Armenian genocide claims in a letter he wrote in 1917. Commander says: "as an eye witness, I object to genocide claims."
It has been detected that a Swedish commander objected to genocide claims that Armenians commemorated each year 90 years ago. Commander Hjalmar Pravitz, who stayed in the Ottoman Empire as an observer, wrote an article for the Swedish Nya Dagligt Allehanda newspaper, dated April 23 1917, stating: "as an eye witness, I certainly object to genocide claims."
Commander Pravitz stated he read the books "Noble Man" by Karl Gustav Ossiannilsson and "The Terrible Situation of the Armenians" by Marika Stjernstedt and pointed out these are all full of lies. The Commander wrote: "all I want to do is relay the events and reveal the distortions in these books."
Friday, December 12, 2008
RAILROADS AND PIPELINES INTEGRATE THE CAUCASUS
By: Sedat LAÇİNER
The Caucasia is such a small region to fight for. Having a bloody history, the region faced with numerous tragedies partly because of being on crossroads. All these sorrowful events should remind us that no nation can provide stability and security to the region without co-operation of the other regional countries. In this framework, the railroad that connects Kars, Tbilisi and Baku is a big step for being hopeful for future. Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan is gradually but in a confident manner attaining regional cooperation may be even integration in the region that previously known with bloody conflicts. First, Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan Pipeline (BTC) connected these three countries; later, the gas pipelines solidified this connection. The pipeline coming from Azerbaijan and Georgia was added to the pipeline coming from Iran. Turkey and Georgia merged their regional air traffic and now the railroads are on the way.
Thus, these three states are integrating with each other with long-term common interests. Therefore, the railroads are bringing these three countries in a non-separable manner.
Kars-Tbilisi-Baku railroad project includes development of 183 km of existing railroad and construction of new railroads as 76 km in Turkey and restoration of 26 km in Georgia. The estimated cost of the project is $ 422 million. However, this cost probably will reach to $600 million with the additional development projects. The railroad line will have the yearly transportation capacity of 15 million tons of goods.
This project may be seen as a small-range project for Turkey with its length and cost. However, the function of the project is for Turkey and the region is far more over its cost. First of all, a less developed region of Turkey will be integrated to Azerbaijan and Georgia. In addition, this project will ease the trade and transportation with Azerbaijan and her open hinterland that reaches to the Middle Asia. As we know the trade and social relations are highly relied on the transportation lines. It is certain that the relations between the people in the region and with Georgia, Azerbaijan, Russia and middle Asia will prosper.
Secondly, this line will bring a rapprochement between Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan and their interests will be structurally similar. With tightening of relations and bridging of the interests cooperation will be intense and as an outcome of this process first the economy of these three states then their politics will be closer as we see in the process of the European Union. Thus, in the middle of a region whose name seems to be equal to instability there will be an island of political and economical stability. Hopefully, this island will expand through the other states in the region.
Another advantage of the line is to increase the capacity of the land routes which is highly sensitive to the local security problems. With more security the cost of transportation in the region will dramatically decreased.
Fourth contribution of the line is directly connecting the homeland Azerbaijan to its far West province Nahcivan. As we know there is Armenia between homeland Azerbaijan and Nahcivan, and Armenians do not allow transition of people through their lands. Airlines are highly expensive compared with the railroads. There were problems of security, high costs of money and time about using Georgia lands for transit passage. The railroads will make vital contributions on the solution of all these problems. Thus, Azerbaijan will develop faster and connection of Nahcivan and Azerbaijan will bring important material benefits to Turkey too.
Another benefit is having an incessant railroad from London to China. As we know the construction of a tube line that connect Istanbul Bosphorus under the sea. Thus, in the near future one will be able to directly go to the coasts of China from London by just getting on a train. Thus, Caucasia and Turkey will connect Europe to Asia with tighter bonds. This is why the countries such as China and Kazakhstan endorse this project.
Armenia
It was a wish for the Turkish statesmen that at least a small portion of the line pass through Armenia because Armenia has so many advantages about both energy and transportation projects. However, obstinacy of the country caused her to be by-passed from the project. Erivan tried to block the projects that she is not included but failed. Armenia and Armenian Diaspora spent a great deal of effort in order to create difficulties for the railroad project. Nevertheless, all these attempts failed. Day by day, Armenia has been isolated in the region and excluded all these economic cooperation. On contrary to the expectations Iran and Russia can not stop this isolation. Despite having borders with Iran, Iran does not have the ability to integrate Armenia to the rest of the world. Actually, Iran has also so many problems in integration to the rest of the world. Armenia does not have borders with Russia, even if she had borders, and Russia does not have any positive significant effect to development of the countries that she supports. Russia has a different style in international politics. Russia made Armenia economically dependent to her with loans until now. Russia for example has the monopoly of energy supplies in Armenia. In other words, Armenia pays high costs for not cooperating with Turkey but only Russia. Staying as an invader on the Azerbaijani soils and turning 1915 incidents to a major problem is cornering Armenia. Yerevan does not recognize national borders of Turkey and tries to harm Turkey’s interests around the world. As a consequence of these problems, Armenia’s border with Turkey is closed and of course the one with Azerbaijan. However, if only Armenia could withdraw from the occupied Azerbaijani territory, recognize Turkish borders and stop using genocide claims as a weapon against Turkey and Turkish people, there would be no reason to exclude Armenia from the regional integration. Especially, the genocide claims have an emotional aspect for the Armenians. The 1915 incidents are being kept fresh as it happened yesterday and the parties that benefit from the genocide (genocide industry) prevent wounds to heal. Of course Diaspora has a great contribution on this situation. Since, Diaspora is not affected by the problems of the region they do not understand the significance of the problems that Armenia faced and how it troubles Armenia to raise the tension.
There is an open government in Turkey that even can debate the genocide claims. Moreover, there is not a solid hatred among Turkish people against Armenia. Turkey is ready to speak any issue. Turkey is ready to cooperate on every issue with Armenia. However, if one wants to cooperate with his/her neighbor, he/she should show respect to the neighbor’s home.
The Caucasia is such a small region to fight for. Having a bloody history, the region faced with numerous tragedies partly because of being on crossroads. All these sorrowful events should remind us that no nation can provide stability and security to the region without co-operation of the other regional countries. In this framework, the railroad that connects Kars, Tbilisi and Baku is a big step for being hopeful for future. Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan is gradually but in a confident manner attaining regional cooperation may be even integration in the region that previously known with bloody conflicts. First, Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan Pipeline (BTC) connected these three countries; later, the gas pipelines solidified this connection. The pipeline coming from Azerbaijan and Georgia was added to the pipeline coming from Iran. Turkey and Georgia merged their regional air traffic and now the railroads are on the way.
Thus, these three states are integrating with each other with long-term common interests. Therefore, the railroads are bringing these three countries in a non-separable manner.
Kars-Tbilisi-Baku railroad project includes development of 183 km of existing railroad and construction of new railroads as 76 km in Turkey and restoration of 26 km in Georgia. The estimated cost of the project is $ 422 million. However, this cost probably will reach to $600 million with the additional development projects. The railroad line will have the yearly transportation capacity of 15 million tons of goods.
This project may be seen as a small-range project for Turkey with its length and cost. However, the function of the project is for Turkey and the region is far more over its cost. First of all, a less developed region of Turkey will be integrated to Azerbaijan and Georgia. In addition, this project will ease the trade and transportation with Azerbaijan and her open hinterland that reaches to the Middle Asia. As we know the trade and social relations are highly relied on the transportation lines. It is certain that the relations between the people in the region and with Georgia, Azerbaijan, Russia and middle Asia will prosper.
Secondly, this line will bring a rapprochement between Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan and their interests will be structurally similar. With tightening of relations and bridging of the interests cooperation will be intense and as an outcome of this process first the economy of these three states then their politics will be closer as we see in the process of the European Union. Thus, in the middle of a region whose name seems to be equal to instability there will be an island of political and economical stability. Hopefully, this island will expand through the other states in the region.
Another advantage of the line is to increase the capacity of the land routes which is highly sensitive to the local security problems. With more security the cost of transportation in the region will dramatically decreased.
Fourth contribution of the line is directly connecting the homeland Azerbaijan to its far West province Nahcivan. As we know there is Armenia between homeland Azerbaijan and Nahcivan, and Armenians do not allow transition of people through their lands. Airlines are highly expensive compared with the railroads. There were problems of security, high costs of money and time about using Georgia lands for transit passage. The railroads will make vital contributions on the solution of all these problems. Thus, Azerbaijan will develop faster and connection of Nahcivan and Azerbaijan will bring important material benefits to Turkey too.
Another benefit is having an incessant railroad from London to China. As we know the construction of a tube line that connect Istanbul Bosphorus under the sea. Thus, in the near future one will be able to directly go to the coasts of China from London by just getting on a train. Thus, Caucasia and Turkey will connect Europe to Asia with tighter bonds. This is why the countries such as China and Kazakhstan endorse this project.
Armenia
It was a wish for the Turkish statesmen that at least a small portion of the line pass through Armenia because Armenia has so many advantages about both energy and transportation projects. However, obstinacy of the country caused her to be by-passed from the project. Erivan tried to block the projects that she is not included but failed. Armenia and Armenian Diaspora spent a great deal of effort in order to create difficulties for the railroad project. Nevertheless, all these attempts failed. Day by day, Armenia has been isolated in the region and excluded all these economic cooperation. On contrary to the expectations Iran and Russia can not stop this isolation. Despite having borders with Iran, Iran does not have the ability to integrate Armenia to the rest of the world. Actually, Iran has also so many problems in integration to the rest of the world. Armenia does not have borders with Russia, even if she had borders, and Russia does not have any positive significant effect to development of the countries that she supports. Russia has a different style in international politics. Russia made Armenia economically dependent to her with loans until now. Russia for example has the monopoly of energy supplies in Armenia. In other words, Armenia pays high costs for not cooperating with Turkey but only Russia. Staying as an invader on the Azerbaijani soils and turning 1915 incidents to a major problem is cornering Armenia. Yerevan does not recognize national borders of Turkey and tries to harm Turkey’s interests around the world. As a consequence of these problems, Armenia’s border with Turkey is closed and of course the one with Azerbaijan. However, if only Armenia could withdraw from the occupied Azerbaijani territory, recognize Turkish borders and stop using genocide claims as a weapon against Turkey and Turkish people, there would be no reason to exclude Armenia from the regional integration. Especially, the genocide claims have an emotional aspect for the Armenians. The 1915 incidents are being kept fresh as it happened yesterday and the parties that benefit from the genocide (genocide industry) prevent wounds to heal. Of course Diaspora has a great contribution on this situation. Since, Diaspora is not affected by the problems of the region they do not understand the significance of the problems that Armenia faced and how it troubles Armenia to raise the tension.
There is an open government in Turkey that even can debate the genocide claims. Moreover, there is not a solid hatred among Turkish people against Armenia. Turkey is ready to speak any issue. Turkey is ready to cooperate on every issue with Armenia. However, if one wants to cooperate with his/her neighbor, he/she should show respect to the neighbor’s home.
This Is About Land
Bernard Lewis is a British-American historian who specializes on Ottoman history. He is probably the most famous and renowned historian to not label the Armenian deportations of 1915 as genocide. He has stated that to make [the so called Armenian Genocide], a parallel with the Holocaust in Germany was rather absurd.
"The deniers of Holocaust have a purpose: to prolong Nazism and to return to Nazi legislation. Nobody wants the 'Young Turks' back, and nobody wants to have back the Ottoman Law. What do the Armenians want? The Armenians want to benefit from both worlds. On the one hand, they speak with pride of their struggle against the Ottoman despotism, while on the other hand, they compare their tragedy to the Jewish Holocaust. I do not accept this. I do not say that the Armenians did not suffer terribly. But I find enough cause for me to contain their attempts to use the Armenian massacres to diminish the worth of the Jewish Holocaust and to relate to it instead as an ethnic dispute."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis#Lewis.27_response_2
Why does Prof. Lewis, who has an extensive knowledge of Ottoman history, not see a parallel between the Holocaust and Armenian fiction. The reason is simple, anyone who has a simple understanding of 20'th century Ottoman history knows that a systematic genocide campaign by the Ottoman government was not carried out against the Armenians. Then why do Armenians insist on this genocide fiction? The answer is simple; Armenia is not self sustaining. It needs land to expand. That is why it has occupied its neighbour Azerbaijan and that is why it is using this genocide fiction to make Turkey give Armenia land under international pressure.
Harout Sassounian, the radical Armenian-American publisher of the California Courier stated recently, that the objective of the Armenians should be land reperations from Turkey and starts towards this radical process should be taken.http://www.tumgazeteler.com/?a=2425446
It is clear that the only desire of the Armenians is land reparations. Therefore, Turks should be made aware of this devious plot.
"The deniers of Holocaust have a purpose: to prolong Nazism and to return to Nazi legislation. Nobody wants the 'Young Turks' back, and nobody wants to have back the Ottoman Law. What do the Armenians want? The Armenians want to benefit from both worlds. On the one hand, they speak with pride of their struggle against the Ottoman despotism, while on the other hand, they compare their tragedy to the Jewish Holocaust. I do not accept this. I do not say that the Armenians did not suffer terribly. But I find enough cause for me to contain their attempts to use the Armenian massacres to diminish the worth of the Jewish Holocaust and to relate to it instead as an ethnic dispute."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis#Lewis.27_response_2
Why does Prof. Lewis, who has an extensive knowledge of Ottoman history, not see a parallel between the Holocaust and Armenian fiction. The reason is simple, anyone who has a simple understanding of 20'th century Ottoman history knows that a systematic genocide campaign by the Ottoman government was not carried out against the Armenians. Then why do Armenians insist on this genocide fiction? The answer is simple; Armenia is not self sustaining. It needs land to expand. That is why it has occupied its neighbour Azerbaijan and that is why it is using this genocide fiction to make Turkey give Armenia land under international pressure.
Harout Sassounian, the radical Armenian-American publisher of the California Courier stated recently, that the objective of the Armenians should be land reperations from Turkey and starts towards this radical process should be taken.http://www.tumgazeteler.com/?a=2425446
It is clear that the only desire of the Armenians is land reparations. Therefore, Turks should be made aware of this devious plot.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
GENOCIDE OF TRUTH
BY: Yüksel OKTAY
Armenian genocide is a controversial issue and also a fabrication by many Armenians and their supporters who benefit from it according to those who have studied the events of the end of 19th and the beginning of 20th century with an open mind and without prejudice. Through the efforts of selfish Armenians, the issue have been carried to the legislative organs of 19 countries and 41 States in America, passing Resolutions declaring April 24 as the genocide day. Articles, books, commentaries which support the Armenian claims number in the hundreds of thousands, mostly based on a few books written by Ambassadors and Missionaries as war propaganda and the survivors of the relocation and immigrants to foreign countries. Very few books have been written by Turks and their supporters that show the Armenian genocide is a myth, as best described in a book by Austrian historian, Erich Feigel, “A Myth of Terror” and other books listed below (1).
On April 14, a new book was introduced to the media (very few attended) and the public which responds to the allegations of the supporters of the Armenian genocide. The 700 page book, “Genocide of Truth”, is the result of over 4 years of extensive research and study by an ordinary Turkish citizen aged 78, who happens to believe that the allegations are an injustice and insult to Turkey and Turks everywhere.
The book is a compilation of information from a multitude of foreign sources, grouped under 30 headings, in order to shed light to certain arguments and thesis. It begins with an Introduction and Chapter 1, “Historical Background”, and ends with Chapter 30, “Status Quo and Conclusive Remarks. There is a long list of Bibliography and a Selected Index and over 400 notes at the end of each chapter which shed further light on the subjects presented. It is a valuable source for anyone interested in solving this number one foreign policy issue of Turkey .
It is not easy to read the massive work in afew days or weeks, which is unique in its presentation with frequent quotations from interseting people that shed light to the subject matter. As the author states in the Introduction, the purpose of the book is “neither to acquit the Ottoman Administration from the responsibilities of a generally badly managed deportation or relocation process, nor to degrade the Armenian people as a race or nationality.”
The first four chapters give the background on the Turkish – Armenian relations and the groundwork established by the Armenians to create a state on eastern part of Turkey where they were never the majority through revolts and uprisings which resulted in the massacre of Muslims and Turks.
The subject covered in Chapter 5, Marvelous Missionaries, is very important, since the American High Schools founded by Protestant missionaries are where I was educated before heading to the United States to attend university. Therefore I would like to present the review of the book in several parts, beginning with this chapter. There has been many commentaries and articles over the years on the role of the missionaries in the creation of the Armenian issue, which is very sensitive and their involvements is not known by the public widely. As a frequent contributor to the study of this issue, I received the following comment from one of my former American teachers:
“We agree that all of us – including Christian missionaries to the Ottoman Empire and Turkey - need to acknowledge that wrongs were done to all sides during the early 20th century. We need to ask forgiveness of each other. Then we need to find ways to be friends. None of these is an easy step; the hurts are real, even if some of the cause may be dubious. For us, the greatest reason for friendship and healing is that the alternative is grossly destructive. “
The chapter begins with information on the founding of Missionary Societies in London with the mission of instructing Christians of the Arab East as to what being Christian meant, evidently prompting Edgar Allan Poe to state, “The pioneers and missionaries of religion have been the real cause of more trouble and war than all other classes of mankind.” (P. 57) The first missionary societies in the USA were founded in 1810 which led to the arrival of missionaries in Izmir in 1819 and the opening of a mission in Bursa in 1834. The book tells the story of their expansion in the Ottoman lands and opening of missionary schools in Harput in 1876 as “ Armenian College ” , later renamed as “ Euphrates College .” The Tarsus American High School was established in 1888 and Talas American High School in 1889.
A book by Dr. Uygur Kocabasoglu, “ America in Anatolia – the Missionary Schools in the 19th Century Ottoman Empire , Based on Documents,” is a good source of information on the activities of the missionary schools. Another book by a former teacher at American High School Frank Andrews Stone, “Academies for Anatolia”, presents a study of the Rationale, Program and Impact of the Educational Institutions Sponsored by the American Board in Turkey: 1830 – 2005. However, neither one of these books are referenced or included in the Bibliography.
Chapter 16, “Propaganda Fabrications,” is also very important as it presents information on the role of several early publications which are being used over and over again by authors, academicians and students to deceive the unsuspecting readers around the world.
The chapter begins with an analysis of the book supposedly written by the US Ambassador to Turkey Henry Morgenthau (1913 – 1915) and based on his diaries, published in the US in 1918. The author tells the story behind this book by referring to a study of Prof. Heath Lowry who has shown that the book did not reflect the true events of the time. Ambassador Morgenthau's book, also available in Turkish translation, was ghost written for him by Burton Hendrick with input from his Armenian secretary and Armenian translator, with the purpose of bringing the US into war against the Ottoman Empire . The sections below are directly from ''The Murder of a Nation'', a chapter from the book ''Ambassador Morgenthau's Story'', published as a separate book by the Armenian Benevolent Association, full of slanders against the Ottoman Turks and many fabricated and distorted facts:
1. p. 51. ''Perhaps the one event in history that most resembles the Armenian deportations was the expulsion of the Jews from Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella. According to Prescott 160,000 were uprooted from their homes and scattered broadcast over Africa and Europe .
The Ambassador conveniently omits the fact that it was the Ottoman Turks who saved the Spanish Jews and sent ships to bring them to the Ottoman lands and settled them in Istanbul , Selanik, Bursa and other cities.
The Ambassador continues on the same page :
Yet all these previous persecutions seem almost trivial when we compare them with the Armenian sufferings, in which at least 600,000 people were destroyed and perhaps as many as 1,000,000.
As mentioned in many references, the Ambassador Morgentahu never ventured from the environs of Istanbul and did not witness anything, as many others and and Samantha Power claim in her book, . And yet the HR 106 voted by the US House Foreign Affairs Committee mentions that 2,000,000 Armenians were deported and 1,500,000 Armenian were killed, among many other distorted facts.
2. p. 6. ''They (Turks) were lacking in what we may call th fundamentals of a civilized community. They had no alphabet and no art of writing; no books, no poets, no art, no architecture; they built no cities and established no lasting states.''
3. p. 50. ''The only reason for relating such dreadful things as this is that, without the details, the English-speaking public can not understand precicsly what this nation is which we call Turkey.''
Sukru Aya writes in his book that Morgentau’s claims were refuted by George A. Schreiner, a distinguished foreign correspondent who served in Turkey at the time and who knew the Ambassador and wrote to him about his concerns on how the truth was twisted to favour the Armenians.
A book on the relations between the Netherlands and Turkey published in 2007 makes reference to the Dutch Reporter George Nypels who has stated in 1922 that “Ambassador Morgenthau’s widely read book was now judged to be ill-founded.” The book, the Netherlands and Turkey: Four hundred years of political, economical, social and cultural relations – selected essays” also states that the writings of the former US Ambassador were refuted by Ahmed Rustem Bey, a former Ottoman Ambassador to Washington . These are not mentioned in “Genocide of Truth” which could be issued as an addendum, including the addition of Morhentau’s books “The Murder of a Nation”, “Secrets of the Bospohorous” and “Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story” to the Bibliography.
Over the years many articles have been written by Henry Morgenthau’s son, Henry Morgenthau Jr. and his grandson, Henry Morgenthau III, which in a way carry on the mission of their father and grandfather, but the “Genocide of Turth” makes no references to any of these, especially commentaries published in Boston Globe by Henry Morgnethau III. There is also no reference to Samantha Power’s book “ A Problem from Hell – America and the Age of Genocide “, which has the opening chapter devoted to the Ambassador’s work with his photograph and can be found in every library in the US.
This is a valuable book that will show the readers the other side of the story and every concerned Turk and Turkish American who would like to see an end to the tall tale of Armenian genocide should read it in order to bring out the truth about the Armenian issue and set the record straight.
End of Part I.
Yuksel Oktay, PE
Istanbul Review of the book “Genocide of Turth” by Sukru Aya , Part II
Yuksel Oktay, PE. July 17, 2008
Genocide of Truth is an excellent book with a collection of detailed information from a wide variety of sources which includes many books, articles, newspaper opinions and commentaries from many foreign publications written by westerners over the past 100 years (Over 2,000, according to the author). It is almost like an encyclopedia, presented under 30 chapters, with an Introduction by Prof. Talat S. Halman and a Foreword & Bibliography by the author. Each chapter can be read as a stand alone treasury of information on various subjects related to this important issue which has been presented to the world as a one sided and prejudiced tragedy with many fabrications, as shown by many authorities..
In the Part I of my review, I covered chapters which I am most familiar with which are also the most controversial. These were Chapters 1 through 5 and Chapter 16, Propaganda fabrications (May 11, 2008). The book begins with Chapter 1, “Historical Background”, and ends with Chapter 30, “Status Quo and Conclusive Remarks. There is a long list of Bibliography and a Selected Index and over 400 notes at the end of each chapter which shed further light on the subjects presented. It is a valuable source for anyone interested in solving this number one foreign policy issue of Turkey .
Part II of my review will cover some of the remaining chapters and summarize for the benefit of those who may not have the time to read the entire book what conclusions one might expect to reach.
Chapter 6, Divinity for Bigotry and Anarchy, provides statements by many famous figures, including Napolean Bonaparte, Warren G. Harding, Sigmund Freud, Tomas Paine, Mohandas Gandi, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, one of the most respected President of the United States (1809 – 1865), claimed to have the Melunchan ancestary. This is what Abraham Lincoln has stated on divinity:
“My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of scriptures have become clearer and stronger with the advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them. Page 89.”
Among the many quotations, The New York Times report on Oct. 28, 1915, The Light That Might Go Out in Turkey, includes the following staement from Admiral Bristol, the US Ambassador to the Ottoman State: “Troubled that killings by Armenians and Greeks did not get into the American press, the admiral wondered in his diary, ‘Why aren’t the atrocities committed by the Christian nation more heinous than those committed by Moslem races’, if Christianity is better than Islam.”
Chapter 7, Distorting Realism Brings Antagonism, offers the readers a variety of excerpts and incidents relating to the Superpowers as defenders of Christianity and Humane values. At the request of Protestant missionaries, England and the U.S. intervene in the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire . In fact, Artin Dadyan Pasha, Ottoman Under-Secretary of State Foreign Affairs actually works for the Armenian case and not for the Sultan as referenced in Erich Feigel’s book “A Myth of Terror.” What is also worse is that the Major Powers were directly and indirectly encouraging enmity between the Armenian sects, referenced in another book, “The Great War and the Great Tragedy of Anatolia” by Salahi Sonyel. The author in a Flier Sheet issued after the publication of the book states that this chapter as well as Chapters 14 though 17 show that the claims outlined in the 2007 House Resolution 106 are fabrications.
Chapter 8, “Di-fused AUTONOMY! (Goal or Pretext?) begins with a statement that the Ottomans were friendly with Dashnaks, something overlooked by most historians and writers, especially the Armenian authors. In fact, the book states that the Dashnak Congress in 1914 was hosted in Erzurum where the Ottomans offered the Dashnaks and Hunchaks autonomy, although the book makes reference to independence as well (which may need to be corrected.). The chapter also makes reference to the aims of British on carving up the Ottoman Empire and the US Presidnet Woodrow Wilson’s desire for its complete disappearance, something shared by the US Ambassador Henry Morgnethau.
Chapter 9, Atrocities, Van, etc., makes references to the Armenian atrocities and revolutionary acts that go back to 1880s. For a very comprehensive study of the Van rebellions, the author refers the reader to Prof. Justin McCarty’s book, “The Armenian Revolt in Van,” while citing from close to 100 other references.
Chapter 10, Battlefields (Sarikamish – Gallipoli – Suez ) emphasizes the fact that the Ottoman armies were fighting on many different fronts, something also overlooked and seldom mentioned by some historians and writers. In his book, Inside Constantinople, Epstein, a member of the US Embassy in Istanbul at the time, states that the attcak at Gallipoli was the main reason for the re-location of Armenians.
Some of the conclusions that the reader can easily reach on the Armenian Issue after reading this book include:
1. Armenians and Turks lived together for almost a thousand years until the western powers began to interfere in the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire and used Armenians for their own purposes.
2. Towards the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, Armenians began revolts and uprisings against the Ottoman government and started massacring Turks with the aim of creating a state of their own on lands where they were not the majority.
3. Armenians betrayed their own government and the moslems by joining the invading Russian forces and with their aid, captured Van, establishing the Armenian R epublic of Van , killing over 30,000 moslem inhabitants. After the relocation and their return, some Armenians joined French forces in fights against the Ottomans in the Cilician region.
4. During the uprisings, Russia , England , France and Italy provided arms and support to the Armenian guerillas and terrorists and the missionaries from these countries and the United States
And much more.
Sukru Aya has not stopped writing about the Armenian issue with the publication of his book. He has summarized new findings that were revealed after the publication of his book, especially a Report submitted to the US Congress by the Near East Relief Fund (now Near East Foundation with headquarters in NYC with an Armenian director) back in 1922. I will cover these and further review of additional chapters in Part III of my review.
This is a book that should be read by everyone who would like to see this issue resolved and Armenians and Turks everywhere can talk to each other, just like we did with Ara Sarafian when he freely discussed the Armenain issue in Istanbul, who was also presented a copy of the book by Sukru Aya personally.
Armenian genocide is a controversial issue and also a fabrication by many Armenians and their supporters who benefit from it according to those who have studied the events of the end of 19th and the beginning of 20th century with an open mind and without prejudice. Through the efforts of selfish Armenians, the issue have been carried to the legislative organs of 19 countries and 41 States in America, passing Resolutions declaring April 24 as the genocide day. Articles, books, commentaries which support the Armenian claims number in the hundreds of thousands, mostly based on a few books written by Ambassadors and Missionaries as war propaganda and the survivors of the relocation and immigrants to foreign countries. Very few books have been written by Turks and their supporters that show the Armenian genocide is a myth, as best described in a book by Austrian historian, Erich Feigel, “A Myth of Terror” and other books listed below (1).
On April 14, a new book was introduced to the media (very few attended) and the public which responds to the allegations of the supporters of the Armenian genocide. The 700 page book, “Genocide of Truth”, is the result of over 4 years of extensive research and study by an ordinary Turkish citizen aged 78, who happens to believe that the allegations are an injustice and insult to Turkey and Turks everywhere.
The book is a compilation of information from a multitude of foreign sources, grouped under 30 headings, in order to shed light to certain arguments and thesis. It begins with an Introduction and Chapter 1, “Historical Background”, and ends with Chapter 30, “Status Quo and Conclusive Remarks. There is a long list of Bibliography and a Selected Index and over 400 notes at the end of each chapter which shed further light on the subjects presented. It is a valuable source for anyone interested in solving this number one foreign policy issue of Turkey .
It is not easy to read the massive work in afew days or weeks, which is unique in its presentation with frequent quotations from interseting people that shed light to the subject matter. As the author states in the Introduction, the purpose of the book is “neither to acquit the Ottoman Administration from the responsibilities of a generally badly managed deportation or relocation process, nor to degrade the Armenian people as a race or nationality.”
The first four chapters give the background on the Turkish – Armenian relations and the groundwork established by the Armenians to create a state on eastern part of Turkey where they were never the majority through revolts and uprisings which resulted in the massacre of Muslims and Turks.
The subject covered in Chapter 5, Marvelous Missionaries, is very important, since the American High Schools founded by Protestant missionaries are where I was educated before heading to the United States to attend university. Therefore I would like to present the review of the book in several parts, beginning with this chapter. There has been many commentaries and articles over the years on the role of the missionaries in the creation of the Armenian issue, which is very sensitive and their involvements is not known by the public widely. As a frequent contributor to the study of this issue, I received the following comment from one of my former American teachers:
“We agree that all of us – including Christian missionaries to the Ottoman Empire and Turkey - need to acknowledge that wrongs were done to all sides during the early 20th century. We need to ask forgiveness of each other. Then we need to find ways to be friends. None of these is an easy step; the hurts are real, even if some of the cause may be dubious. For us, the greatest reason for friendship and healing is that the alternative is grossly destructive. “
The chapter begins with information on the founding of Missionary Societies in London with the mission of instructing Christians of the Arab East as to what being Christian meant, evidently prompting Edgar Allan Poe to state, “The pioneers and missionaries of religion have been the real cause of more trouble and war than all other classes of mankind.” (P. 57) The first missionary societies in the USA were founded in 1810 which led to the arrival of missionaries in Izmir in 1819 and the opening of a mission in Bursa in 1834. The book tells the story of their expansion in the Ottoman lands and opening of missionary schools in Harput in 1876 as “ Armenian College ” , later renamed as “ Euphrates College .” The Tarsus American High School was established in 1888 and Talas American High School in 1889.
A book by Dr. Uygur Kocabasoglu, “ America in Anatolia – the Missionary Schools in the 19th Century Ottoman Empire , Based on Documents,” is a good source of information on the activities of the missionary schools. Another book by a former teacher at American High School Frank Andrews Stone, “Academies for Anatolia”, presents a study of the Rationale, Program and Impact of the Educational Institutions Sponsored by the American Board in Turkey: 1830 – 2005. However, neither one of these books are referenced or included in the Bibliography.
Chapter 16, “Propaganda Fabrications,” is also very important as it presents information on the role of several early publications which are being used over and over again by authors, academicians and students to deceive the unsuspecting readers around the world.
The chapter begins with an analysis of the book supposedly written by the US Ambassador to Turkey Henry Morgenthau (1913 – 1915) and based on his diaries, published in the US in 1918. The author tells the story behind this book by referring to a study of Prof. Heath Lowry who has shown that the book did not reflect the true events of the time. Ambassador Morgenthau's book, also available in Turkish translation, was ghost written for him by Burton Hendrick with input from his Armenian secretary and Armenian translator, with the purpose of bringing the US into war against the Ottoman Empire . The sections below are directly from ''The Murder of a Nation'', a chapter from the book ''Ambassador Morgenthau's Story'', published as a separate book by the Armenian Benevolent Association, full of slanders against the Ottoman Turks and many fabricated and distorted facts:
1. p. 51. ''Perhaps the one event in history that most resembles the Armenian deportations was the expulsion of the Jews from Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella. According to Prescott 160,000 were uprooted from their homes and scattered broadcast over Africa and Europe .
The Ambassador conveniently omits the fact that it was the Ottoman Turks who saved the Spanish Jews and sent ships to bring them to the Ottoman lands and settled them in Istanbul , Selanik, Bursa and other cities.
The Ambassador continues on the same page :
Yet all these previous persecutions seem almost trivial when we compare them with the Armenian sufferings, in which at least 600,000 people were destroyed and perhaps as many as 1,000,000.
As mentioned in many references, the Ambassador Morgentahu never ventured from the environs of Istanbul and did not witness anything, as many others and and Samantha Power claim in her book, . And yet the HR 106 voted by the US House Foreign Affairs Committee mentions that 2,000,000 Armenians were deported and 1,500,000 Armenian were killed, among many other distorted facts.
2. p. 6. ''They (Turks) were lacking in what we may call th fundamentals of a civilized community. They had no alphabet and no art of writing; no books, no poets, no art, no architecture; they built no cities and established no lasting states.''
3. p. 50. ''The only reason for relating such dreadful things as this is that, without the details, the English-speaking public can not understand precicsly what this nation is which we call Turkey.''
Sukru Aya writes in his book that Morgentau’s claims were refuted by George A. Schreiner, a distinguished foreign correspondent who served in Turkey at the time and who knew the Ambassador and wrote to him about his concerns on how the truth was twisted to favour the Armenians.
A book on the relations between the Netherlands and Turkey published in 2007 makes reference to the Dutch Reporter George Nypels who has stated in 1922 that “Ambassador Morgenthau’s widely read book was now judged to be ill-founded.” The book, the Netherlands and Turkey: Four hundred years of political, economical, social and cultural relations – selected essays” also states that the writings of the former US Ambassador were refuted by Ahmed Rustem Bey, a former Ottoman Ambassador to Washington . These are not mentioned in “Genocide of Truth” which could be issued as an addendum, including the addition of Morhentau’s books “The Murder of a Nation”, “Secrets of the Bospohorous” and “Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story” to the Bibliography.
Over the years many articles have been written by Henry Morgenthau’s son, Henry Morgenthau Jr. and his grandson, Henry Morgenthau III, which in a way carry on the mission of their father and grandfather, but the “Genocide of Turth” makes no references to any of these, especially commentaries published in Boston Globe by Henry Morgnethau III. There is also no reference to Samantha Power’s book “ A Problem from Hell – America and the Age of Genocide “, which has the opening chapter devoted to the Ambassador’s work with his photograph and can be found in every library in the US.
This is a valuable book that will show the readers the other side of the story and every concerned Turk and Turkish American who would like to see an end to the tall tale of Armenian genocide should read it in order to bring out the truth about the Armenian issue and set the record straight.
End of Part I.
Yuksel Oktay, PE
Istanbul Review of the book “Genocide of Turth” by Sukru Aya , Part II
Yuksel Oktay, PE. July 17, 2008
Genocide of Truth is an excellent book with a collection of detailed information from a wide variety of sources which includes many books, articles, newspaper opinions and commentaries from many foreign publications written by westerners over the past 100 years (Over 2,000, according to the author). It is almost like an encyclopedia, presented under 30 chapters, with an Introduction by Prof. Talat S. Halman and a Foreword & Bibliography by the author. Each chapter can be read as a stand alone treasury of information on various subjects related to this important issue which has been presented to the world as a one sided and prejudiced tragedy with many fabrications, as shown by many authorities..
In the Part I of my review, I covered chapters which I am most familiar with which are also the most controversial. These were Chapters 1 through 5 and Chapter 16, Propaganda fabrications (May 11, 2008). The book begins with Chapter 1, “Historical Background”, and ends with Chapter 30, “Status Quo and Conclusive Remarks. There is a long list of Bibliography and a Selected Index and over 400 notes at the end of each chapter which shed further light on the subjects presented. It is a valuable source for anyone interested in solving this number one foreign policy issue of Turkey .
Part II of my review will cover some of the remaining chapters and summarize for the benefit of those who may not have the time to read the entire book what conclusions one might expect to reach.
Chapter 6, Divinity for Bigotry and Anarchy, provides statements by many famous figures, including Napolean Bonaparte, Warren G. Harding, Sigmund Freud, Tomas Paine, Mohandas Gandi, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, one of the most respected President of the United States (1809 – 1865), claimed to have the Melunchan ancestary. This is what Abraham Lincoln has stated on divinity:
“My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of scriptures have become clearer and stronger with the advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them. Page 89.”
Among the many quotations, The New York Times report on Oct. 28, 1915, The Light That Might Go Out in Turkey, includes the following staement from Admiral Bristol, the US Ambassador to the Ottoman State: “Troubled that killings by Armenians and Greeks did not get into the American press, the admiral wondered in his diary, ‘Why aren’t the atrocities committed by the Christian nation more heinous than those committed by Moslem races’, if Christianity is better than Islam.”
Chapter 7, Distorting Realism Brings Antagonism, offers the readers a variety of excerpts and incidents relating to the Superpowers as defenders of Christianity and Humane values. At the request of Protestant missionaries, England and the U.S. intervene in the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire . In fact, Artin Dadyan Pasha, Ottoman Under-Secretary of State Foreign Affairs actually works for the Armenian case and not for the Sultan as referenced in Erich Feigel’s book “A Myth of Terror.” What is also worse is that the Major Powers were directly and indirectly encouraging enmity between the Armenian sects, referenced in another book, “The Great War and the Great Tragedy of Anatolia” by Salahi Sonyel. The author in a Flier Sheet issued after the publication of the book states that this chapter as well as Chapters 14 though 17 show that the claims outlined in the 2007 House Resolution 106 are fabrications.
Chapter 8, “Di-fused AUTONOMY! (Goal or Pretext?) begins with a statement that the Ottomans were friendly with Dashnaks, something overlooked by most historians and writers, especially the Armenian authors. In fact, the book states that the Dashnak Congress in 1914 was hosted in Erzurum where the Ottomans offered the Dashnaks and Hunchaks autonomy, although the book makes reference to independence as well (which may need to be corrected.). The chapter also makes reference to the aims of British on carving up the Ottoman Empire and the US Presidnet Woodrow Wilson’s desire for its complete disappearance, something shared by the US Ambassador Henry Morgnethau.
Chapter 9, Atrocities, Van, etc., makes references to the Armenian atrocities and revolutionary acts that go back to 1880s. For a very comprehensive study of the Van rebellions, the author refers the reader to Prof. Justin McCarty’s book, “The Armenian Revolt in Van,” while citing from close to 100 other references.
Chapter 10, Battlefields (Sarikamish – Gallipoli – Suez ) emphasizes the fact that the Ottoman armies were fighting on many different fronts, something also overlooked and seldom mentioned by some historians and writers. In his book, Inside Constantinople, Epstein, a member of the US Embassy in Istanbul at the time, states that the attcak at Gallipoli was the main reason for the re-location of Armenians.
Some of the conclusions that the reader can easily reach on the Armenian Issue after reading this book include:
1. Armenians and Turks lived together for almost a thousand years until the western powers began to interfere in the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire and used Armenians for their own purposes.
2. Towards the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, Armenians began revolts and uprisings against the Ottoman government and started massacring Turks with the aim of creating a state of their own on lands where they were not the majority.
3. Armenians betrayed their own government and the moslems by joining the invading Russian forces and with their aid, captured Van, establishing the Armenian R epublic of Van , killing over 30,000 moslem inhabitants. After the relocation and their return, some Armenians joined French forces in fights against the Ottomans in the Cilician region.
4. During the uprisings, Russia , England , France and Italy provided arms and support to the Armenian guerillas and terrorists and the missionaries from these countries and the United States
And much more.
Sukru Aya has not stopped writing about the Armenian issue with the publication of his book. He has summarized new findings that were revealed after the publication of his book, especially a Report submitted to the US Congress by the Near East Relief Fund (now Near East Foundation with headquarters in NYC with an Armenian director) back in 1922. I will cover these and further review of additional chapters in Part III of my review.
This is a book that should be read by everyone who would like to see this issue resolved and Armenians and Turks everywhere can talk to each other, just like we did with Ara Sarafian when he freely discussed the Armenain issue in Istanbul, who was also presented a copy of the book by Sukru Aya personally.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
ABOUT INNOCENT ARMENIANS
Massacre Exerted By The Armenian On The Turks During World War I Pictures.
“As an Armenian, I never condone terrorism, but there must be a reason behind this. Maybe terrorism will work. It worked for the Jews.
They have Israel.”
Kevork Donabedian, the editor of the Armenian Weekly, an ethnic newspaper published in the United States, reported in an article in The Christian Science Monitor, November 18, 1980
————-
“We have first hand information and evidence of Armenian atrocities against our people (Jews). Members of our family witnessed the murder of 148 members of our family near Erzurum, Turkey, by Armenian neighbors, bent on destroying anything and anybody remotely Jewish and/or Muslim. Armenians should look to their own history and see the havoc they and their ancestors perpetrated upon their neighbors.
Armenians were in league with Hitler in the last war, on his premise to grant themselves government if, in return, the Armenians would help exterminate Jews. Armenians were also hearty proponents of the anti-Semitic acts in league with the Russian Communists.”
Signed Elihu Ben Levi, Vacaville, California.
Source: Extracts from a letter dated December 11, 1983, published in the San Francisco Chronicle, as an answer to a letter that had been published in the same journal under the signature of one B. Amarian.
They have Israel.”
Kevork Donabedian, the editor of the Armenian Weekly, an ethnic newspaper published in the United States, reported in an article in The Christian Science Monitor, November 18, 1980
————-
“We have first hand information and evidence of Armenian atrocities against our people (Jews). Members of our family witnessed the murder of 148 members of our family near Erzurum, Turkey, by Armenian neighbors, bent on destroying anything and anybody remotely Jewish and/or Muslim. Armenians should look to their own history and see the havoc they and their ancestors perpetrated upon their neighbors.
Armenians were in league with Hitler in the last war, on his premise to grant themselves government if, in return, the Armenians would help exterminate Jews. Armenians were also hearty proponents of the anti-Semitic acts in league with the Russian Communists.”
Signed Elihu Ben Levi, Vacaville, California.
Source: Extracts from a letter dated December 11, 1983, published in the San Francisco Chronicle, as an answer to a letter that had been published in the same journal under the signature of one B. Amarian.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Turkey, Armenia and Genocide Fiction
Since ancient times humans have struggled to surround themselves with prosperity, security and safety. Then of course came desire of wealth creating greed, wars, death and destruction. Due to domination of agriculture in economic growth, prosperity depended, to a great extend on the amount of territory a certain kingdom or empire controlled and therefore could gather wealth from. Wars were the only mean available to powerful rulers in their quest for more control and wealth. Lands changed hands, people died and were enslaved, and mankind went about its normal course of development.
It should then come as no surprise that Armenia is not a self-sustaining state, because it is a landlocked small state. Even though Armenia's economy grew by 13 per cent in 2007 its GDP per capita ( PPP ) $5,800 remains in par with Albanians and is lower than Jamaica's GDP per capita ( PPP ). Armenia's future also remains uncertain in the Caucasus, because Armenia depends exclusively on Russia and 70 per cent of Armenia's land territory is under an economic blockade by Turkey and Azerbaijan, after Armenia illegally occupied 20 per cent of Azerbaijan's territory.
Armenia is well aware of these aforementioned facts. That is why Armenia is desperately seeking for Western countries to accept the so called Armenian genocide in their parliaments, so it can gain a leverage over Turkey and expand her territory. But what Armenia doesn't realize is how resilient the Turkish Republic is. Even if the whole world recognizes the so called Armenian Genocide, only around 30 countries out of a 192 have so far recognized the Armenian fiction, Turkey will not bulge and give Armenia compensations, because a vast majority of Turks believe that the deportations were necessary to preserve the Ottoman state. It should never be forgotten that it was the Armenians who rebelled against the Ottoman Empire and wanted to carve out a homeland in what is now Eastern Turkey.
In conclusion, Turks are proud of their vast history. And no amount of Armenian lies and propaganda will make Turks shift to feel ashamed of their past by accepting such horrendous accusations.
It should then come as no surprise that Armenia is not a self-sustaining state, because it is a landlocked small state. Even though Armenia's economy grew by 13 per cent in 2007 its GDP per capita ( PPP ) $5,800 remains in par with Albanians and is lower than Jamaica's GDP per capita ( PPP ). Armenia's future also remains uncertain in the Caucasus, because Armenia depends exclusively on Russia and 70 per cent of Armenia's land territory is under an economic blockade by Turkey and Azerbaijan, after Armenia illegally occupied 20 per cent of Azerbaijan's territory.
Armenia is well aware of these aforementioned facts. That is why Armenia is desperately seeking for Western countries to accept the so called Armenian genocide in their parliaments, so it can gain a leverage over Turkey and expand her territory. But what Armenia doesn't realize is how resilient the Turkish Republic is. Even if the whole world recognizes the so called Armenian Genocide, only around 30 countries out of a 192 have so far recognized the Armenian fiction, Turkey will not bulge and give Armenia compensations, because a vast majority of Turks believe that the deportations were necessary to preserve the Ottoman state. It should never be forgotten that it was the Armenians who rebelled against the Ottoman Empire and wanted to carve out a homeland in what is now Eastern Turkey.
In conclusion, Turks are proud of their vast history. And no amount of Armenian lies and propaganda will make Turks shift to feel ashamed of their past by accepting such horrendous accusations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
